Sword or rapier?
Hitchens takes down Coulter in his own special way.
She has emerged as a persona because she has mastered the politics of resentment, and because she can combine the ideology of Human Events (the obscure ‘Joe McCarthy was right’ magazine) with the demand of the chat-show bookers for a tall blonde with a very rapid delivery on a wide range of subjects.
Ah yes the very rapid delivery thing. (I’ve never seen Coulter in action, but I’ve seen others.) I’ve never seen the appeal. I prefer the effete languid drawl of a Vidal or Hitchens that nails you without breaking a sweat. Much more amusing, also humiliating. Anyone can jabber; it’s those relaxed, casual, effortless bastards who can really make the blowhards look like fools. As Hitchens proceeds to do.
Here is another instance of the sheer incoherence that results from a mixture of feigned rage and low sarcasm…[T]he abject confusion, with its resounding non sequitur of a concluding sentence, impels her to the negation of her own supposed “argument”. These are the pitfalls that are set by spite and by haste, and Coulter topples leggily into them every time…So, slice it as you will, Coulter finds herself inventing new ways in which to be wrong. As it goes on, the book begins to seem more like typing than writing, and its demonstration of the relationship between poor language and crude ideas becomes more overt.
See what I mean? No need to say that quickly. No need for haste. Easy does it. Steady as she goes. Whack!
If it matters, I am with her on the tepid climate of moral and political relativism which, while it wants all children to do equally well at exam time, also regards the United States as no worse than the Taliban and thus, by an unspoken logic, as no better. But a polemic against this mentality cannot really be written by a McCarthyite.
Or by someone who’s not very good at writing or thinking clearly, or by someone who invents new ways to be wrong. Not useful talents for that particular job.
In a world where the true enemies of civilization are much, much more godly than the blonde goddess of the hard Right, Coulter is reduced to a blitzing of soft civilian targets – one redeemed only by its built-in tendency to fall so wide of the mark.
That’s how it’s done.
I love this “If it matters…”.
If you appreciate this kind of style (regardless of the ideas expressed) you may want to check AA Gill or (dare I say this?) Martin Amis.
It does ammuse me when Guardianistas call Hitch a Neo-con.
“someone who invents new ways to be wrong”
10/10
I am always amazed by the contrast between Hitchens as a writer and as a ‘performer’, where he too often descends into the same vituperative name-calling mode as Coulter.
I saw her on Paxman and boy did she make a jackass of him.Perhaps it is because yanks speak more bluntly whereas most of Poxman’s interlocutors are too British and polite.
Saw the interview and was disappointed that Paxman didn’t follow through. I wouldn’t agree she made a jackass out of him, but rather that he attacked her on grounds that simply didn’t matter to her; factual accuracy, coherence, logic, common courtesy. He thinks they are salient points in a debate; she doesn’t.
I got the impression he thought that being a lot smarter and better informed was enough to win the debate, but she doesn’t frame it that way. Not his best performance, but most viewers unfamiliar with Coulter were surely left with the impression of obnoxious, mouthy bigot.
Coulter is plainly made, and quite possibly sectioonable.
I saw the Paxman clip on the web.
She actually believes that “Evolutionism” is a cabal or plot by the world’s scientists – including every learned professional institution on the planet.
She is stark raving bonkers.
Why has no-one shown this up?
Because I, too, thought Paxman blew it – probably journalistic/legalistic, rather than scintific training on his part?.
It’s the double-bind that means many scientists (how many?) won’t appear on the same platform as IDers or creationists. They know they will be in a lose/lose situation.
Bearing in mind Paxo’s current hate and discontent of the BBC producers who he accuses of dumbing down the programme, I wonder if he even wanted to interview her, vile ass-witted harridan and hysterical vigilante for prejudice and stupidity that she is.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701?currentPage=1
I think he’s losing it.
I’ve just watched the interview on YouTube. Paxo did ask some dumb questions: “Are you going to retract what you’ve written?”;”Do you honestly believe that?”. Did he expect her to break down and say “Yes, Jeremy, everything I’ve been writing for years has been a barefaced lie. To atone, my next project is a collaboration with Chomsky and Michael Moore.”?
“Do you have an alternative?” If Paxo had to answer that question, he’d never be able to interview anyone.
He let her say that evolution and environmentalism are religious beliefs. Why didn’t he ask her how many peer reviewed scientific papers backed up ID or denied global warming?
Paxo achieved the impossible: He made Coulter look reasonable.